Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:57:18.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

General anaesthesia or spinal anaesthesia for outpatient urological surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2005

E. Erhan ,
G. Ugur ,
O. Anadolu ,
M. Saklayan  and
B. Ozyar
E. Erhan
Affiliation:
Ege University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
G. Ugur
Affiliation:
Ege University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
O. Anadolu
Affiliation:
Ege University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
M. Saklayan
Affiliation:
Ege University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
B. Ozyar
Affiliation:
Ege University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
Get access

Abstract

Summary

Background and objective: A variety of drugs and techniques have been introduced into ambulatory anaesthesia. The technique as well as the drugs used may hasten or delay home discharge. We compared recovery profiles and side-effects of spinal anaesthesia and total intravenous anaesthesia.

Methods: Forty unpremedicated ASA I–II patients (18–65 yr) undergoing varicocele repair were randomly divided into two groups. Spinal anaesthesia (26-G atraumatic needle) with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% 5 mg and fentanyl 25 μg were given to patients in Group Spinal (n = 20). Patients in Group TIVA (n = 20) received total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil given by continuous infusion; a laryngeal mask was used to secure the airway. The duration of surgery, time to home readiness and side-effects were recorded.

Results: The two groups were comparable with respect to patients' characteristics and duration of surgery. The times to achieve ambulation were similar between groups (Spinal = 78.4 ± 40.9 min, TIVA = 75.9 ± 13.8 min). Urinary voiding was a requirement for discharge after spinal anaesthesia and the time for home readiness was longer in Group Spinal (158.0 ± 40.2 versus 94.9 ± 18.8 min) (P < 0.05). Two patients reported pruritus and one reported postdural puncture headache in Group Spinal, whereas two patients reported nausea in Group TIVA. Patients in Group TIVA had a greater need for analgesia postoperation (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: In healthy unpremedicated men undergoing minor urological operations, total intravenous anaesthesia with remifentanil and propofol provided as safe and effective anaesthesia as spinal block with the advantage of earlier home readiness.

Keywords

ANAESTHESIA CONDUCTION, spinal anaesthesiaANAESTHESIA GENERALANAESTHETICS, INTRAVENOUS, propofol, remifentanilANAESTHETICS, LOCAL, bupivacaineSURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE, ambulatory surgical procedures
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 20 , Issue 8 , September 2003 , pp. 647 - 652
Copyright
2003 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

White PF. Ambulatory anesthesia advances into the new millennium. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 1234–1235.Google Scholar
Dahl V, Gierloff C, Omland E, Reader JC. Spinal, epidural or propofol anaesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1997; 41: 1341–1345.Google Scholar
Mulroy MF, Larkin KL, Hodgson PS, Helman JD, Pollock JE, Liu SS. A comparison of spinal, epidural, and general anesthesia for outpatient knee arthroplasty. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 860–864.Google Scholar
Song D, Greilich NB, White PF, Watcha MF, Tongier WK. Recovery profiles and costs of anesthesia for outpatient unilateral inguinal herniorrhaphy. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 876–881.Google Scholar
Wong J, Marshall S, Chung F, Sinclair D, Song D, Tong D. Spinal anesthesia improves early recovery profile of patients undergoing ambulatory knee arthroscopy. Can J Anesth 2001; 48: 369–374.Google Scholar
Philip BK, Scuderi PE, Chung F, et al. Remifentanil compared with alfentanil for ambulatory surgery using total intravenous anesthesia. The Remifentanil/Alfentanil Outpatient TIVA Group. Anesth Analg 1997; 84: 515–521.Google Scholar
Van Vlymen JM, White PF. Outpatient anesthesia. In: Miller RD, ed. Anesthesia, 5th edn. Philadelphia, USA: Churchill Livingstone, 2000: 2213–2240.
Pollock JE, Liu SS, Neal JM, Stephenson CA. Dilution of spinal lidocaine does not alter the incidence of transient neurologic symptoms. Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 445–450.Google Scholar
Hampl KF, Heinzmann-Wiedmer S, Luginbuehl I, et al. Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia: a lower incidence with prilocaine and bupivacaine than with lidocaine. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 629–633.Google Scholar
Freedman JM, Li DK, Drasner K, Jaskela MC, Larsen B, Wi S. Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia: an epidemiologic study of 1,863 patients. Anesthesiology 1998; 89: 633–641.Google Scholar
Ben-David B, Solomon E, Levin H, Admoni H, Goldik Z. Intrathecal fentanyl with small-dose dilute bupivacaine: better anesthesia without prolonging recovery. Anesth Analg 1997; 85: 560–565.Google Scholar
Tsen LC, Schultz R, Martin R, Data S, Badder AM. Intrathecal low-dose bupivacaine versus lidocaine for in vitro fertilization procedures. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001; 26: 52–56.Google Scholar
Marshall SI, Chung F. Discharge criteria and complications after ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 508–517.Google Scholar
Pavlin DJ, Pavlin EG, Fitzgibbon DR, Koerschgen ME, Plitt TM. Management of bladder function after outpatient surgery. Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 42–50.Google Scholar
Pavlin DJ, Pavlin EG, Gunn HC, Taraday JK, Koerschgen ME. Voiding in patients managed with or without ultrasound monitoring of bladder volume after outpatient surgery. Anesth Analg 1999; 89: 90–97.Google Scholar
Mulroy MF, Wills RP. Spinal anesthesia for outpatients: appropriate agents and techniques. J Clin Anesth 1995; 7: 622–627.Google Scholar
Tarkkila P, Huhtala J, Tuominen M, Lindgren L. Transient radicular irritation after bupivacaine spinal anesthesia. Reg Anesth 1996; 21: 26–29.Google Scholar
Hiller A, Rosenberg PH. Transient neurological symptoms after spinal anaesthesia with 4% mepivacaine and 0.5% bupivacaine. Br J Anaesth 1997; 79: 301–305.Google Scholar
Keld DB, Hein L, Dalgaard M, Krogh L, Rodt SA. The incidence of transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) after spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing surgery in the supine position. Hyperbaric lidocaine 5% versus hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5%. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2000; 44: 285–290.Google Scholar
Salmela L, Aromaa U. Transient radicular irritation after spinal anesthesia induced with hyperbaric solutions of cerebrospinal fluid-diluted lidocaine 50 mg/ml or mepivacaine 40 mg/ml or bupivacaine 5 mg/ml. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1998; 42: 765–769.Google Scholar
Kuusniemi KS, Pihlajamäki KK, Pitkänen MK, Helenius HY, Kirvelä OA. The use of bupivacaine and fentanyl for spinal anesthesia for urologic surgery. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 1452–1456.Google Scholar
Hampl KF, Schneider MC, Thorin D, Ummenhofer W, Drewe J. Hyperosmolarity does not contribute to transient radicular irritation after spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric 5% lidocaine. Reg Anesth 1995; 20: 363–368.Google Scholar
Richardson MG, Wissler RN. Densities of dextrose-free intrathecal local anesthetics, opioids, and combinations measured at 37 degrees C. Anesth Analg 1997; 84: 95–99.Google Scholar
Nicol ME, Holdcroft A. Density of intrathecal agents. Br J Anaesth 1992; 68: 60–63.Google Scholar
Glass PSA, Gan TJ, Howell S. A review of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. Anesth Analg 1999; 89 (Suppl. 4): S7–14.Google Scholar
Comfort VK, Code WE, Rooney ME, Yip RW. Naproxen premedication reduces postoperative tubal ligation pain. Can J Anaesth 1992; 39: 349–352.Google Scholar
Tong D, Chung F, Wong D. Predictive factors in global and anesthesia satisfaction in ambulatory surgical patients. Anesthesiology 1997; 87: 856–864.Google Scholar